ChanFamous I wanted to like it more than I actually did... But much of the humor totally escaped me and I walked out only mildly impressed.

Philippa All of these films share one commonality, that being a kind of emotional center that humanizes a cast of monsters.

Logan By the time the dramatic fireworks start popping off, each one feels earned.

Jenni Devyn Worth seeing just to witness how winsome it is.

Wizard-8 First of all, I feel I should say that I am a HUGE fan of westerns. So much so, that I am often very forgiving if a western has some shortcomings. But with "Brothers In Arms", I simply could not accept what it had to offer. There are so many things wrong with it. There's the modern hip-hop music score. The characters dressed in costumes that not only look too modern, but don't look like they've been lived in long. The look of the movie is wretched, being badly photographed, badly lit, and filtered to look too murky. The locations in and out of town look boring. The shootouts are badly directed and edited. There's modern slang spoken. There is a female sheriff. And if you put all of his footage together, David Carradine has no more than five minutes of screen time. I can't see this appealing to either an "urban" audience or for western addicts.

Goldfish Soldier This is by far the worst movie I have ever seen and the director deserves to be punched in the face. First, there's the massive history inaccuracy. I'm not racist, but why the hell are blacks and whites mixing with each other in a bar in 1866, in Texas, a year after the civil war!?! Second, the editing is atrocious, the worst I've ever seen. During a scene where the main cast is surrounded in a house with heaps of bad guys are shooting away, a scene where one of the guys in the house sticking a shotgun out a window is repeated 4 times. 4 times!! And by the time the shotgun sound is added in we've skipped to another frame! Third why the hell did I watch this movie! there were heaps of other better looking movie to hire but I had to pick this one! I could go on for ages about how crap this movie is, but I won't. I'd give this movie zero, but the rating system won't let me. Just don't see this piece of crap.

macrocephalic This is one of those movies that I couldn't even sit all the way through, and I have sat through some absolute crap in my days, even many Baldwin movies! I don't mind the blacksploitation genre, but this one was just terrible, acting was terrible, story line was terrible, costumes were cliché and let's not even get into the historical plausibility.The bottom line is: even if you can get this movie for free or see it with a friend, you'll regret the hour+ of your life that you spent watching it (or less time if you can't sit through it like me).On the plus side it may be good for a laugh if you're drunk at home with some mates, although it still doesn't have the drunken laughter appeal of something like Python or any of the 70's and 80's cult movies.If you want a serious movie, don't get this, if you want a drunken laugh then only get this if ALL of the 80's horror films are already hired out.I gave it a score of one because 'awful' really is fitting.

krywolff Let me start out by saying that I am a white male. I thought it was a decent effort at what they were attempting to do with this movie, so I've rated it a 4. But overall, this movie sucked.Every time the camera was on a different person it was like the show stopped and they were trying to make some big drama out of each character. In order for that to work, people have to care, and I didn't care at all. It was like a bunch of different ideas that they were trying to mold into one film, but they didn't complete any of those ideas and in my opinion they didn't even work together.Now let me get to the part that is probably controversial. I watched the special features on the DVD to see what the maker of this film, Jean Claude, was thinking... because really, a black western? An urban western?? Hey I'm a fan of Moulin Rouge where they incorporated modern music through the whole movie and it was superb, so I am not against new ideas. But Moulin Rouge was as much of a comedy as it was a love story and musical. It was meant to be a fantasy world of dreamers.Brothers in Arms was to be taken completely seriously. Jean Claude explained that he wants to be the person to show people that there can be black westerns, that there can be black sci-fi, and a "black race car movie", etc. I admire his intentions, but for the love of God, a black western?? I kept waiting for there to be some kind of narration in the beginning that spoke of blacks in the old west, historically speaking. If that were the case, if the movie were to be documenting the little known black addition to the old west, I would have been glued to the screen. But this movie's attempt to put blacks in a western is like someone making a remake to Roots featuring an all white cast.